The General and Kargil
Aparna Pande October 8, 2006
#277 Posted by MantoLives on October 14, 2006 10:26:17 pm
Avkrishna,
If you tried, your myths would be shattered and that would be a most painful experience.
Also... your pathetic little attempt to color Jinnah in the colors of Patel and Nehru as someone who condoned violence is not backed by history.
Sure... Jinnah was not a drama like that violent racist, casteist, fanatic bigot Gandhi and s we can`t expect dramatics... but Jinnah`s personal intervention to save Hindus in Karachi and Sindh is well documented ... ofcourse he was doing it with a sense of duty as the Governor General of Pakistan.
Also to compare Patel, who gloated at every incident of violence, to Jinnah, who otherwise an unemotional man, was not only visibly affected according to everyone who met him, but also made concrete efforts to put down violence, which are appreciated by all historians... if not hogwash peddaling Gandhian hagiographers... is especially ironic.
So for god`s sake now... stop your lying... haven`t you Indians done enough damage to the cause of truth?
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#276 Posted by arjun2 on October 14, 2006 9:23:57 pm
No land gained..dead soldiers abandoned on the mountains, their bodies probably still rotting in the cold, 2700 deaths, Pakiland no closer to the Kashmir banega Pakiland wet dream...
BUT: It was a great victory for Pakiland....mmmmkay...
Pak lost 2,700 troops during Kargil conflict: Nawaz Sharif
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Army lost 2,700 military personnel in the Kargil conflict, far higher than its casualties during the 1965 and 1971 wars with India, former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif has said in his memoirs.
Giving his account of the 1999 conflict in the book ``Ghadaar Kaun? Nawaz Sharif Ki Kahani, Unki Zubani``, Sharif said the casualties suffered by the Army were so extensive that an entire brigade of the Northern Light Infantry based in the Pakistan-controlled Northern Areas was wiped out.
Sharif reiterated his contention that Gen Pervez Musharraf, the then Army chief, had not taken him into confidence on the situation in Kargil and that he learnt the details from his Indian counterpart, Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
BUT: It was a great victory for Pakiland....mmmmkay...
Pak lost 2,700 troops during Kargil conflict: Nawaz Sharif
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Army lost 2,700 military personnel in the Kargil conflict, far higher than its casualties during the 1965 and 1971 wars with India, former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif has said in his memoirs.
Giving his account of the 1999 conflict in the book ``Ghadaar Kaun? Nawaz Sharif Ki Kahani, Unki Zubani``, Sharif said the casualties suffered by the Army were so extensive that an entire brigade of the Northern Light Infantry based in the Pakistan-controlled Northern Areas was wiped out.
Sharif reiterated his contention that Gen Pervez Musharraf, the then Army chief, had not taken him into confidence on the situation in Kargil and that he learnt the details from his Indian counterpart, Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
#275 Posted by arjun2 on October 14, 2006 9:21:18 pm
Zeemax: Feel free to live in your echo-chamber of self-delusion...
http://www.dawn.com/2006/10/15/ed.htm#4
The truth about the Kargil episode
By Shamshad Ahmad
WE now have two clearly delineated and mutually dismissive versions of the Kargil episode — a controversial as well as painful saga of our history. Any attempt to jump into the fray would only distract the focus of history on this issue and also aggravate the controversy and further compound the “mystery.” But after President Musharraf’s book, ‘In the Line of Fire’, the Kargil episode is no longer a mystery.
Earlier, in his biography: “Ghaddaar Kaun?”, the former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, had given his version of the Kargil crisis reiterating his contention that the army leadership did not take him into confidence in planning the operation and he was kept in the dark until the situation got out of hand. According to him, the army then pleaded with him to seek American intervention to obtain a Kargil ceasefire.
Nawaz Sharif then did go to Washington and had a meeting with President Clinton on July 4, 1999, which resulted in Paksitan’s withdrawal from the Kargil heights. It still remains a mystery how that visit came about, but those who have read the Kargil excerpts in General Anthony Zinni’s book “Battle Ready” look upon the general’s visit to Islamabad on June 24-25 as a “watershed” event in the closing moments of the crisis. This event somehow figures nowhere in Musharraf’s book.
The world has known all along that the Kargil conflict was the result of a large-scale infiltration of “Kashmiri militants” and Pakistani soldiers into high-altitude positions on the Indian side of the Line of Control, which has served as a de facto border in Kashmir between the two countries. Pakistan’s position during the crisis was that only the mujahideen groups were involved in the taking over of the forward Kargil posts. But no one believed it.
President Musharraf has now confirmed this general perception. He acknowledges the involvement of Pakistan army in preparation of what he claims a “preemptive” and “defensive” operation from October 1998, the month of his appointment as COAS.
On page 93 of his book, he describes the Kargil operations as a “landmark” in the history of the Pakistan army as its only five battalions were able to “compel the Indians to employ more than four divisions” with the bulk of their artillery coming from their strike formations in the southern plains. According to Musharraf’s colleague-in-arm and self-proclaimed nemesis, Ali Kuli Khan, there could not have been “a worst military debacle” in Pakistan’s history.
The move was not without a precedent. India had made similar “tactical intrusions” across the Line of Control on several occasions in the past in clear violation of the solemnly agreed Line of Control, and had occupied huge territories on our side. But it got away with those violations. In fact, the lost grounds are still with India, including a large chunk of Pakistan’s territory in Chorbat La sector which we lost in 1972, Siachin lost in 1984 (which is now one of the major outstanding issues between India and Pakistan), and several posts lost in Qamar sector in 1988.
Surprisingly, for unknown but not unimaginable reasons, these territorial losses to India were never made public although they now figure prominently in our official or officially-sponsored publications in the context of India’s violations of the Line of Control.
The perception that the “military victory” was turned into a “political surrender” will never be sustained by history. Did we achieve anything from Kargil? This question would also be best answered by history. In whatever way one looks at the Kargil events, the episode did mark a “watershed” in India-Pakistan relations.
http://www.dawn.com/2006/10/15/ed.htm#4
The truth about the Kargil episode
By Shamshad Ahmad
WE now have two clearly delineated and mutually dismissive versions of the Kargil episode — a controversial as well as painful saga of our history. Any attempt to jump into the fray would only distract the focus of history on this issue and also aggravate the controversy and further compound the “mystery.” But after President Musharraf’s book, ‘In the Line of Fire’, the Kargil episode is no longer a mystery.
Earlier, in his biography: “Ghaddaar Kaun?”, the former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, had given his version of the Kargil crisis reiterating his contention that the army leadership did not take him into confidence in planning the operation and he was kept in the dark until the situation got out of hand. According to him, the army then pleaded with him to seek American intervention to obtain a Kargil ceasefire.
Nawaz Sharif then did go to Washington and had a meeting with President Clinton on July 4, 1999, which resulted in Paksitan’s withdrawal from the Kargil heights. It still remains a mystery how that visit came about, but those who have read the Kargil excerpts in General Anthony Zinni’s book “Battle Ready” look upon the general’s visit to Islamabad on June 24-25 as a “watershed” event in the closing moments of the crisis. This event somehow figures nowhere in Musharraf’s book.
The world has known all along that the Kargil conflict was the result of a large-scale infiltration of “Kashmiri militants” and Pakistani soldiers into high-altitude positions on the Indian side of the Line of Control, which has served as a de facto border in Kashmir between the two countries. Pakistan’s position during the crisis was that only the mujahideen groups were involved in the taking over of the forward Kargil posts. But no one believed it.
President Musharraf has now confirmed this general perception. He acknowledges the involvement of Pakistan army in preparation of what he claims a “preemptive” and “defensive” operation from October 1998, the month of his appointment as COAS.
On page 93 of his book, he describes the Kargil operations as a “landmark” in the history of the Pakistan army as its only five battalions were able to “compel the Indians to employ more than four divisions” with the bulk of their artillery coming from their strike formations in the southern plains. According to Musharraf’s colleague-in-arm and self-proclaimed nemesis, Ali Kuli Khan, there could not have been “a worst military debacle” in Pakistan’s history.
The move was not without a precedent. India had made similar “tactical intrusions” across the Line of Control on several occasions in the past in clear violation of the solemnly agreed Line of Control, and had occupied huge territories on our side. But it got away with those violations. In fact, the lost grounds are still with India, including a large chunk of Pakistan’s territory in Chorbat La sector which we lost in 1972, Siachin lost in 1984 (which is now one of the major outstanding issues between India and Pakistan), and several posts lost in Qamar sector in 1988.
Surprisingly, for unknown but not unimaginable reasons, these territorial losses to India were never made public although they now figure prominently in our official or officially-sponsored publications in the context of India’s violations of the Line of Control.
The perception that the “military victory” was turned into a “political surrender” will never be sustained by history. Did we achieve anything from Kargil? This question would also be best answered by history. In whatever way one looks at the Kargil events, the episode did mark a “watershed” in India-Pakistan relations.
#273 Posted by ZahraJ on October 14, 2006 7:43:32 pm
Arjun - This is for you. It was a very unpleasant picture on the front page of the local daily.
New charges possible in baby beating
Saturday, October 14, 2006
By KIBRET MARKOS
STAFF WRITER
An Upper Saddle River nanny caught brutalizing a 6-month-old girl on videotape could face more serious charges once authorities review all of the medical reports, a Bergen County prosecutor said Friday.
Identified only as P.S., the girl remained at Hackensack University Medical Center, where doctors Friday were trying to determine exactly how much damage was done when 51-year-old Manjula Patel of Rochelle Park slapped and shook her, then threw her on a hardwood floor and stomped and kicked her, said Assistant Bergen County Prosecutor Liliana Silebi.
Patel said very little when she was brought to Superior Court in Hackensack, where she was formally charged with aggravated assault and child endangerment, both second-degree counts that carry up to 10 years in prison each upon conviction. She remained held on $200,000 bail at the Bergen County Jail on Friday.
Silebi didn`t say what other charges could follow.
``The [medical] testing is still ongoing, and depending on what those results are in the next couple of days, there may be additional charges,`` she said.
Patel, an Indian national, has been in the United States since June. The Upper Saddle River family hired her through a newspaper ad six weeks ago after interviewing her, Silebi said. She declined to comment on whether they had done any background check.
Silebi said the family left a video camera running on a table in their living room Wednesday. After returning home and viewing the video, they called an ambulance.
The incident renewed debate over ``nanny cams,`` with distributors touting their use and nanny hiring agencies insisting they expose a greater need.
``I think it`s an absolute stupidity,`` said Bob Mark of America`s Nannies, a Paramus placement agency. ``People get cameras, and they think that will excuse their negligence and failure to properly screen their nannies.``
Mark said he wondered why the family would hire an immigrant ``who just got off the boat,`` instead of finding a nanny with experience and solid references.
``These are mistakes that people make over and over again,`` he said. ``They cheap out and hire a complete stranger to save a few bucks. Yes, such nannies are to blame for abusing children, but the family is also to blame for giving them the opportunity.``
Silebi, meanwhile, said the Upper Saddle River case should be a warning to other parents hiring nannies.
``This is an example of what can happen when you take a nanny into your house,`` she said. ``It`s very important to do a background check.``
Andrea Flagg, a career nanny and president of the Nanny Alliance of New York and New Jersey, agreed that proper screening -- rather than ``nanny camming`` -- is the best way to avoid abusive caretakers.
Flagg said she was once ``nanny-cammed`` by a family she worked for six years ago.
``I felt very self-conscious,`` she said. ``I felt like I was being stalked.``
Rhyder McClure, president of The New York Nanny Cam Co., disagreed.
``Are you going to tell me that it`s OK not to have a camera when you leave the most precious thing you have -- which is your child -- in the hands of a stranger?`` said McClure, whose company distributes cameras in the metropolitan area. ``Any parent in this day and age who doesn`t have a nanny cam is bordering on irresponsibility.``
Christy Ann Bozanian, owner of Be Our Nanny, a placement and referral agency in Leonia, incorporated both views.
``There is never too much protection you can give to your child,`` she said. ``We would want the parents to take every step possible under the law to protect their children.``
Nanny cams have become increasingly popular in recent years. Parks Associates, a market research firm focusing on digital home devices, estimated that nearly 40 percent of households with children in 2004 have shown interest in such products.
In 2006 alone, the firm estimates, close to 1.2 million homes nationwide will have installed wireless cameras, said Bill Ablondi, director of home systems at the Dallas-based firm.
Nanny cams have helped solve several child-abuse cases, said Bergen County Prosecutor John L. Molinelli. But that doesn`t mean parents should rely solely on them, he warned.
``Parents are usually right when they feel that something is wrong [with a nanny],`` Molinelli said.
Instead of shopping for a nanny cam, the prosecutor said, they should call police at that point.
``Don`t wait for the very harm to occur that you are seeking to avoid,`` he said.
New charges possible in baby beating
Saturday, October 14, 2006
By KIBRET MARKOS
STAFF WRITER
An Upper Saddle River nanny caught brutalizing a 6-month-old girl on videotape could face more serious charges once authorities review all of the medical reports, a Bergen County prosecutor said Friday.
Identified only as P.S., the girl remained at Hackensack University Medical Center, where doctors Friday were trying to determine exactly how much damage was done when 51-year-old Manjula Patel of Rochelle Park slapped and shook her, then threw her on a hardwood floor and stomped and kicked her, said Assistant Bergen County Prosecutor Liliana Silebi.
Patel said very little when she was brought to Superior Court in Hackensack, where she was formally charged with aggravated assault and child endangerment, both second-degree counts that carry up to 10 years in prison each upon conviction. She remained held on $200,000 bail at the Bergen County Jail on Friday.
Silebi didn`t say what other charges could follow.
``The [medical] testing is still ongoing, and depending on what those results are in the next couple of days, there may be additional charges,`` she said.
Patel, an Indian national, has been in the United States since June. The Upper Saddle River family hired her through a newspaper ad six weeks ago after interviewing her, Silebi said. She declined to comment on whether they had done any background check.
Silebi said the family left a video camera running on a table in their living room Wednesday. After returning home and viewing the video, they called an ambulance.
The incident renewed debate over ``nanny cams,`` with distributors touting their use and nanny hiring agencies insisting they expose a greater need.
``I think it`s an absolute stupidity,`` said Bob Mark of America`s Nannies, a Paramus placement agency. ``People get cameras, and they think that will excuse their negligence and failure to properly screen their nannies.``
Mark said he wondered why the family would hire an immigrant ``who just got off the boat,`` instead of finding a nanny with experience and solid references.
``These are mistakes that people make over and over again,`` he said. ``They cheap out and hire a complete stranger to save a few bucks. Yes, such nannies are to blame for abusing children, but the family is also to blame for giving them the opportunity.``
Silebi, meanwhile, said the Upper Saddle River case should be a warning to other parents hiring nannies.
``This is an example of what can happen when you take a nanny into your house,`` she said. ``It`s very important to do a background check.``
Andrea Flagg, a career nanny and president of the Nanny Alliance of New York and New Jersey, agreed that proper screening -- rather than ``nanny camming`` -- is the best way to avoid abusive caretakers.
Flagg said she was once ``nanny-cammed`` by a family she worked for six years ago.
``I felt very self-conscious,`` she said. ``I felt like I was being stalked.``
Rhyder McClure, president of The New York Nanny Cam Co., disagreed.
``Are you going to tell me that it`s OK not to have a camera when you leave the most precious thing you have -- which is your child -- in the hands of a stranger?`` said McClure, whose company distributes cameras in the metropolitan area. ``Any parent in this day and age who doesn`t have a nanny cam is bordering on irresponsibility.``
Christy Ann Bozanian, owner of Be Our Nanny, a placement and referral agency in Leonia, incorporated both views.
``There is never too much protection you can give to your child,`` she said. ``We would want the parents to take every step possible under the law to protect their children.``
Nanny cams have become increasingly popular in recent years. Parks Associates, a market research firm focusing on digital home devices, estimated that nearly 40 percent of households with children in 2004 have shown interest in such products.
In 2006 alone, the firm estimates, close to 1.2 million homes nationwide will have installed wireless cameras, said Bill Ablondi, director of home systems at the Dallas-based firm.
Nanny cams have helped solve several child-abuse cases, said Bergen County Prosecutor John L. Molinelli. But that doesn`t mean parents should rely solely on them, he warned.
``Parents are usually right when they feel that something is wrong [with a nanny],`` Molinelli said.
Instead of shopping for a nanny cam, the prosecutor said, they should call police at that point.
``Don`t wait for the very harm to occur that you are seeking to avoid,`` he said.
#272 Posted by krishna_abcd on October 14, 2006 4:49:33 pm
#262 by ranjit
It is not often that you come across a post that is wrong on so many levels.
So I cannot help myself but argue this one.
On a side note unrelated to this discussion: are you Sikh by any chance? And what are your feelings about the killings of the Sikhs after the death of Indira Gandhi? I would like to know your views on this.
Okay, let`s take this line by line.
[Actually I am arguing the opposite. I agree that Nehru was just plain greedy about Kashmir.]
On what grounds do you say he was ``greedy``? Any facts, logic etc.?
[However, this greed had a side effect. It forced him and the Congress leadership to honor their pre-1947 commitment to secularism..]
So if he had not been ``greedy`` about Kashmir, and therefore he and the Congress leadership had not been ``forced`` to ``honor their pre-1947 commitment to secularism``, what exactly do you think they would have done?
[..as well as prevent Punjab/Bengal level communal violence to spread in other places]
So, are you saying that ``preventing Punjab/Bengal level communal violence to spread in other places`` was a pre-existing commitment as well? So Nehru and the Congress leadership knew that this was going to happen, and committed themselves to not letting it happen? Because Nehru was greedy?
[My contention is that Congress had about as much commitment to secularism that the Muslim League had - it was basically a talking point in British India when both communities were together.]
What is this ``contention`` based on? Any facts, logic etc.?
[Once partition had happened, there was hardly any incentive for secularism in India just as there was no incentive for secularism in Pakistan, especially in the communal atmosphere at that time. India could very well have become a hindu mirror image of Pakistan. In that context the lust for Kashmir created an incentive for Congress to actually deliver on its pre-1947 pledge to secularism. The lack of a similar incentive in Pakistan led to that country moving fully into the non-secular camp which got formalized a couple of decades later as an Islamic state. At this point in time, there is about as much chance of Pakistan becoming secular as that of USA becoming communist, your tortured protests notwithstanding. ]
Ah! So you are saying that :
1) The general population is always secular,
2) But their secularism is controlled by political parties like the Congress.
3) The congress decided not to make the public non-secular.
4) Therefore there was secularism in India.
So then which political parties incited Hindus and Sikhs to kill Muslims during the partition? Let me know.
[As far as right/wrong, fair/unfair is concerned, that is all theory.]
Really? That`s what Charles Manson said in his own trial! This is a profound statement! Could you explain why someone raping/beheading someone else is just ``theory``?
[Hindus can argue all day that it was wrong and unfair for Ghaznavi/Ghouri to attack India without provocation and convert 25% people to Islam, who in the future demanded separation into Pakistan. Its not going to change the harsh reality one bit.]
This is another profound statement. REALLY? So the reality is not going to change then? The reality that Ghaznavi/Ghauri attacked India without provocation and converted 25% people to Islam? This is not going to change? And many of us were SO hoping that this reality would change!
Ummm okay. Thanks for that heads-up.
[Ghaznavi/Ghouri had the might to do what they did, and nothing can reverse that.]
Once again, thanks! That`s powerful logic! I DID NOT know that this historic fact cannot be reversed! I was rather hoping for a time-machine kind of scenario where you CAN go into the past and change history. But no! I cannot! No wonder Mantolives is ecstatic at this post.
[Similarly Pakistan can complain all day about Nehru`s greed. Nehru was greedy and he had the means to get what he wanted. India has the power and the strength to retain Kashmir indefinitely, especially with nukes in hand. So it is a harsh reality that Pakistanis must accept and look to the future. Nehru is gone now, just as Ghaznavi/Ghouri are gone. However, both you and me and our future generations have to live side by side in peace. ]
This is profound! Let me recap that. Nehru is gone. Ghaznavi is gone. But we are here. And we have to deal with each other in peace. WOW!
Powerful stuff!
I think you and Manto are rubbing off on each other.
It is not often that you come across a post that is wrong on so many levels.
So I cannot help myself but argue this one.
On a side note unrelated to this discussion: are you Sikh by any chance? And what are your feelings about the killings of the Sikhs after the death of Indira Gandhi? I would like to know your views on this.
Okay, let`s take this line by line.
[Actually I am arguing the opposite. I agree that Nehru was just plain greedy about Kashmir.]
On what grounds do you say he was ``greedy``? Any facts, logic etc.?
[However, this greed had a side effect. It forced him and the Congress leadership to honor their pre-1947 commitment to secularism..]
So if he had not been ``greedy`` about Kashmir, and therefore he and the Congress leadership had not been ``forced`` to ``honor their pre-1947 commitment to secularism``, what exactly do you think they would have done?
[..as well as prevent Punjab/Bengal level communal violence to spread in other places]
So, are you saying that ``preventing Punjab/Bengal level communal violence to spread in other places`` was a pre-existing commitment as well? So Nehru and the Congress leadership knew that this was going to happen, and committed themselves to not letting it happen? Because Nehru was greedy?
[My contention is that Congress had about as much commitment to secularism that the Muslim League had - it was basically a talking point in British India when both communities were together.]
What is this ``contention`` based on? Any facts, logic etc.?
[Once partition had happened, there was hardly any incentive for secularism in India just as there was no incentive for secularism in Pakistan, especially in the communal atmosphere at that time. India could very well have become a hindu mirror image of Pakistan. In that context the lust for Kashmir created an incentive for Congress to actually deliver on its pre-1947 pledge to secularism. The lack of a similar incentive in Pakistan led to that country moving fully into the non-secular camp which got formalized a couple of decades later as an Islamic state. At this point in time, there is about as much chance of Pakistan becoming secular as that of USA becoming communist, your tortured protests notwithstanding. ]
Ah! So you are saying that :
1) The general population is always secular,
2) But their secularism is controlled by political parties like the Congress.
3) The congress decided not to make the public non-secular.
4) Therefore there was secularism in India.
So then which political parties incited Hindus and Sikhs to kill Muslims during the partition? Let me know.
[As far as right/wrong, fair/unfair is concerned, that is all theory.]
Really? That`s what Charles Manson said in his own trial! This is a profound statement! Could you explain why someone raping/beheading someone else is just ``theory``?
[Hindus can argue all day that it was wrong and unfair for Ghaznavi/Ghouri to attack India without provocation and convert 25% people to Islam, who in the future demanded separation into Pakistan. Its not going to change the harsh reality one bit.]
This is another profound statement. REALLY? So the reality is not going to change then? The reality that Ghaznavi/Ghauri attacked India without provocation and converted 25% people to Islam? This is not going to change? And many of us were SO hoping that this reality would change!
Ummm okay. Thanks for that heads-up.
[Ghaznavi/Ghouri had the might to do what they did, and nothing can reverse that.]
Once again, thanks! That`s powerful logic! I DID NOT know that this historic fact cannot be reversed! I was rather hoping for a time-machine kind of scenario where you CAN go into the past and change history. But no! I cannot! No wonder Mantolives is ecstatic at this post.
[Similarly Pakistan can complain all day about Nehru`s greed. Nehru was greedy and he had the means to get what he wanted. India has the power and the strength to retain Kashmir indefinitely, especially with nukes in hand. So it is a harsh reality that Pakistanis must accept and look to the future. Nehru is gone now, just as Ghaznavi/Ghouri are gone. However, both you and me and our future generations have to live side by side in peace. ]
This is profound! Let me recap that. Nehru is gone. Ghaznavi is gone. But we are here. And we have to deal with each other in peace. WOW!
Powerful stuff!
I think you and Manto are rubbing off on each other.
#270 Posted by masanamuthu on October 14, 2006 3:55:51 pm
Had the Sikhs, the state of Indore, Junagadh and Jodhpur not been bullied into coming into Pakistan, which they had decided to ... Pakistan would have commitment more or less along the same lines.
ROFL.. read the resignation letter of Mandal the `first and last Dalit Hindu law minister of Pakistan` link
That should put paid to the claim ``Pakistan is `secular``` .. This dude believed in the BS of Jinnah and got rewarded.. :-)
I think `ranjit` aptly remarked partition as two parties fighting over divorce to retain the maximum number of assets.. You should note that the `princely states` have formed more than one third (I`ve read an author claim 45%) of what constitutes `political India` right now.. What`s the use in talking about meaningless `paper` written by nameless princes/ kings/ sultans.. India will continue to hold Kashmir as long as it is militarily powerful..
#269 Posted by malaymishra123 on October 14, 2006 3:01:26 pm
doesnt matter who signed who and who;s bad or not
fact of the matter is....kashmir is with us, pakistan cannot take it away from us, by force (laughing my ass of at the though!!) or by any other means.
Second, had the rest of Kashmir gone with Pakistan then they would be living in the same miserable conditions that `Azad` Kashmir lives in.Abject poverty, no development. Any search on the net will prove that azad kashmir is like going back in time and civilization. Kashmir is far better off with us. Now on the context, with India`s rapidly growing ecnonomy, this difference is sure to increase and soon there will be no doubt where the kashmiris want to go.
Now there was this chap saying that Azad kashmir is NOT OFFICIALLY a part of pakistan and that shud be the case with the rest of kashmir too...india shud not have entered kashmir to the Indian Union.....u do know that for contesting in the SO CALLED ELECTIONS in azad kashmir every candidate has to sign a pledge stating that he completely supports Kasmirs accession to pakistan and will continue to do so and support the cause of liberation of kashmir. Every person who holds a government office, has to sign the same pledge before he starts his job...now, do u call this `azad`. Further to my point some research showed(all u gotta do is google whether PoK is better than the indian kashmir or not) that azad kashmir has the WORST human right abuses than anywhere else and yes ladies and gentlemen, everywhere else INCLUDES indian kashmir.
And dont even bother saying u people get to VOTE !! to elect your leaders! heh!
i believe the pakistani constitution is in its 59th revised edition!
and for the final part...Pakistan never had and never will be able to match India in any sphere of life, be it military or economy, if ever u go to war with us....Pakistan would be wiped-off-the-face-of-the-planet, while we would be sustaining serious injuries at max. Pakistan is a near failed state that doesnt even have an ecnonomy to sustain a damn war for more than a week. They practically live on the handouts from U.S. So please in gods name , try to improve your country and ask yourself why even after half a century of freedom, u still dont have democracy and u still think about achieving ``enlightened moderation`` while your neighbour who got indepedence at the same time is prospering.
For a reality check, hope over to New Delhi or Mumbai or Chennai and see the difference , if u can get the visa and see, that no1 gives a damn about religion, but we give a damn about your nationality. And while ur here also see the many protests that people and political parties organise against the governments policies without the government comming down their throats and throwing them in prisons.
fact of the matter is....kashmir is with us, pakistan cannot take it away from us, by force (laughing my ass of at the though!!) or by any other means.
Second, had the rest of Kashmir gone with Pakistan then they would be living in the same miserable conditions that `Azad` Kashmir lives in.Abject poverty, no development. Any search on the net will prove that azad kashmir is like going back in time and civilization. Kashmir is far better off with us. Now on the context, with India`s rapidly growing ecnonomy, this difference is sure to increase and soon there will be no doubt where the kashmiris want to go.
Now there was this chap saying that Azad kashmir is NOT OFFICIALLY a part of pakistan and that shud be the case with the rest of kashmir too...india shud not have entered kashmir to the Indian Union.....u do know that for contesting in the SO CALLED ELECTIONS in azad kashmir every candidate has to sign a pledge stating that he completely supports Kasmirs accession to pakistan and will continue to do so and support the cause of liberation of kashmir. Every person who holds a government office, has to sign the same pledge before he starts his job...now, do u call this `azad`. Further to my point some research showed(all u gotta do is google whether PoK is better than the indian kashmir or not) that azad kashmir has the WORST human right abuses than anywhere else and yes ladies and gentlemen, everywhere else INCLUDES indian kashmir.
And dont even bother saying u people get to VOTE !! to elect your leaders! heh!
i believe the pakistani constitution is in its 59th revised edition!
and for the final part...Pakistan never had and never will be able to match India in any sphere of life, be it military or economy, if ever u go to war with us....Pakistan would be wiped-off-the-face-of-the-planet, while we would be sustaining serious injuries at max. Pakistan is a near failed state that doesnt even have an ecnonomy to sustain a damn war for more than a week. They practically live on the handouts from U.S. So please in gods name , try to improve your country and ask yourself why even after half a century of freedom, u still dont have democracy and u still think about achieving ``enlightened moderation`` while your neighbour who got indepedence at the same time is prospering.
For a reality check, hope over to New Delhi or Mumbai or Chennai and see the difference , if u can get the visa and see, that no1 gives a damn about religion, but we give a damn about your nationality. And while ur here also see the many protests that people and political parties organise against the governments policies without the government comming down their throats and throwing them in prisons.
#268 Posted by Ranjit on October 14, 2006 11:34:37 am
Re:manto
[..Had the Sikhs, the state of Indore, Junagadh and Jodhpur not been bullied into coming into Pakistan, which they had decided to ... Pakistan would have commitment more or less along the same lines. However... in Kashmir ... it is hardly fair that you want to hold a people hostage to solve your own problems... India would have had a huge non-Hindu population notwithstanding.....]
Manto, paritition was not a benign separation of two communities. It was a bitter divorce with a massive all out powerplay to get sole custody of as many shared assets as possible. Both sides indulged in that powerplay and used every means possible to maximize their share - a truly zero sum game. The presence of the british gave it a veneer of constitutionality, which came apart in the accompanying communal holocaust. So whatever happened is now fait accompli.
The real question to ask is why did the relations of the two communities degenerate to such an extent? Just as in a divorce case, the division of property is not the real issue, the incompatiblity of the partners is the root cause. My personal feelings is that the ``incompatibilty`` of the two sides was engineered very carefully by the british by constantly fueling the differences of the two communities to play them off against each other. In addition the economic conditions were terrible such that government jobs were the main opportunities for advancement. Hence a separate existence with separate government became an attractive option for both sides.
Sometimes I wonder if in those days, if the people could have looked into the future and see nhow things would shape up in terms of economic boom and the development of the two countries, would they still have been so gung-ho about partition? I dont know!!
[..Had the Sikhs, the state of Indore, Junagadh and Jodhpur not been bullied into coming into Pakistan, which they had decided to ... Pakistan would have commitment more or less along the same lines. However... in Kashmir ... it is hardly fair that you want to hold a people hostage to solve your own problems... India would have had a huge non-Hindu population notwithstanding.....]
Manto, paritition was not a benign separation of two communities. It was a bitter divorce with a massive all out powerplay to get sole custody of as many shared assets as possible. Both sides indulged in that powerplay and used every means possible to maximize their share - a truly zero sum game. The presence of the british gave it a veneer of constitutionality, which came apart in the accompanying communal holocaust. So whatever happened is now fait accompli.
The real question to ask is why did the relations of the two communities degenerate to such an extent? Just as in a divorce case, the division of property is not the real issue, the incompatiblity of the partners is the root cause. My personal feelings is that the ``incompatibilty`` of the two sides was engineered very carefully by the british by constantly fueling the differences of the two communities to play them off against each other. In addition the economic conditions were terrible such that government jobs were the main opportunities for advancement. Hence a separate existence with separate government became an attractive option for both sides.
Sometimes I wonder if in those days, if the people could have looked into the future and see nhow things would shape up in terms of economic boom and the development of the two countries, would they still have been so gung-ho about partition? I dont know!!
#267 Posted by Ranjit on October 14, 2006 11:18:37 am
Re:avkrishna#264
[...Revisionism at it`s height of immaturity...
You can blame Gandhi , but not his sincerity on the issue of co-existence between all religions.. And Congress of 1940s, atleast at the high level has more or less the same view. Of course, we have leader like Patel who believed different, but I strongly suspect Nehru is cut from the same cloth.....]
The partition era communal violence in East Punjab was at the same level of brutality as West Punjab, which led to an almost 100% ethnic cleansing of muslims, which was reciprocated in West Punjab with almost 100% ethnic cleansing of hindus/sikhs. The violence in Bengal was also very bad. How many Congress leaders went to Punjab and tried to stop the violence? Zero. Did Nehru or Patel go to Punjab and do anything? After all, if you are champions of secularism, shouldnt you take some action?
Gandhi did go to Calcutta and Noakhali, but he was acting on his own. How many Congress leaders did anything radical to stop communal violence? It is easy to blame Muslim League as communal but what was the track record of the Congress? Congress supported partition of Punjab and Bengal provinces and hence did nothing to stop violence there as long as it served its own political interests - something which we blame the Muslim League for all the time.
The fact that all communal violence mysteriously stopped in 1948 and India rediscovered secularism, while Kashmir was getting gobbled up, is too much of a coincidence!!
[...Revisionism at it`s height of immaturity...
You can blame Gandhi , but not his sincerity on the issue of co-existence between all religions.. And Congress of 1940s, atleast at the high level has more or less the same view. Of course, we have leader like Patel who believed different, but I strongly suspect Nehru is cut from the same cloth.....]
The partition era communal violence in East Punjab was at the same level of brutality as West Punjab, which led to an almost 100% ethnic cleansing of muslims, which was reciprocated in West Punjab with almost 100% ethnic cleansing of hindus/sikhs. The violence in Bengal was also very bad. How many Congress leaders went to Punjab and tried to stop the violence? Zero. Did Nehru or Patel go to Punjab and do anything? After all, if you are champions of secularism, shouldnt you take some action?
Gandhi did go to Calcutta and Noakhali, but he was acting on his own. How many Congress leaders did anything radical to stop communal violence? It is easy to blame Muslim League as communal but what was the track record of the Congress? Congress supported partition of Punjab and Bengal provinces and hence did nothing to stop violence there as long as it served its own political interests - something which we blame the Muslim League for all the time.
The fact that all communal violence mysteriously stopped in 1948 and India rediscovered secularism, while Kashmir was getting gobbled up, is too much of a coincidence!!
#266 Posted by arjun2 on October 14, 2006 9:35:41 am
#265 by Mantolives on October 14, 2006 5:58am PT
it is hardly fair that you want to hold a people hostage to solve your own problems.
Feel free to open the doors of the land of the pure for the Kashmiris who want to be part of Pakistan..Maybe they can be part of Azad Kashmir....
it is hardly fair that you want to hold a people hostage to solve your own problems.
Feel free to open the doors of the land of the pure for the Kashmiris who want to be part of Pakistan..Maybe they can be part of Azad Kashmir....
#265 Posted by MantoLives on October 14, 2006 5:58:40 am
Dear Avkrishna,
You don`t want me to start on that issue honestly. Suffice to say I have every reason to doubt Gandhi`s sincerity. In any event, the issue was not of religion but rather imagined identity.
Dear Ranjit,
I just want to add... that I don`t have a problem with having a hyphenated state, as long as Pakistan`s minorities are given their equal rights as promised to them again and again.
Had the Sikhs, the state of Indore, Junagadh and Jodhpur not been bullied into coming into Pakistan, which they had decided to ... Pakistan would have commitment more or less along the same lines. However... in Kashmir ... it is hardly fair that you want to hold a people hostage to solve your own problems... India would have had a huge non-Hindu population notwithstanding.
You don`t want me to start on that issue honestly. Suffice to say I have every reason to doubt Gandhi`s sincerity. In any event, the issue was not of religion but rather imagined identity.
Dear Ranjit,
I just want to add... that I don`t have a problem with having a hyphenated state, as long as Pakistan`s minorities are given their equal rights as promised to them again and again.
Had the Sikhs, the state of Indore, Junagadh and Jodhpur not been bullied into coming into Pakistan, which they had decided to ... Pakistan would have commitment more or less along the same lines. However... in Kashmir ... it is hardly fair that you want to hold a people hostage to solve your own problems... India would have had a huge non-Hindu population notwithstanding.
#271 Posted by avkrishna on October 14, 2006 4:43:46 pm
Re: # 265
Manto,
Honestly, even I am least interested in starting that debate with you. You are entitled to your opinion. I am to mine. So let`s leave it at that,
Ranjit # 267:
Drawing such strong conclusions based on violence in Punjab during those 6-8 months is flawed. It`s almost impossible for any one to stop the mob mentality during the time of such madness. I doubt even Gandhi could have had such success in the Western theatre..
So let`s go to the core of your argument. You believe Nehru is of the same ilk as Patel and Jinnah. People who condoned voilence tacitly or not.. Other than basing your argument on a theoritical construct, do you have any proof? Please let me know if you have any. Also, let me know how much involvement he had in creating the Constitution, how much lobbying he had to do for either adding/deleting Secularism in our Preamble?
Rgds,
Avkrishna
Manto,
Honestly, even I am least interested in starting that debate with you. You are entitled to your opinion. I am to mine. So let`s leave it at that,
Ranjit # 267:
Drawing such strong conclusions based on violence in Punjab during those 6-8 months is flawed. It`s almost impossible for any one to stop the mob mentality during the time of such madness. I doubt even Gandhi could have had such success in the Western theatre..
So let`s go to the core of your argument. You believe Nehru is of the same ilk as Patel and Jinnah. People who condoned voilence tacitly or not.. Other than basing your argument on a theoritical construct, do you have any proof? Please let me know if you have any. Also, let me know how much involvement he had in creating the Constitution, how much lobbying he had to do for either adding/deleting Secularism in our Preamble?
Rgds,
Avkrishna
#263 Posted by MantoLives on October 14, 2006 2:21:52 am
Ranjit...
That is a brilliant post.
I completely agree with you.
That is a brilliant post.
I completely agree with you.
#262 Posted by Ranjit on October 14, 2006 1:54:00 am
Re:manto#250
[.... This is just ridiculous that you state that India could only be a secular state by having a Muslim majority state. The reason why Kashmir issue was created was because Hari Singh was a bigot and Nehru was just plain greedy....]
Actually I am arguing the opposite. I agree that Nehru was just plain greedy about Kashmir. However, this greed had a side effect. It forced him and the Congress leadership to honor their pre-1947 commitment to secularism as well as prevent Punjab/Bengal level communal violence to spread in other places.
My contention is that Congress had about as much commitment to secularism that the Muslim League had - it was basically a talking point in British India when both communities were together. Once partition had happened, there was hardly any incentive for secularism in India just as there was no incentive for secularism in Pakistan, especially in the communal atmosphere at that time. India could very well have become a hindu mirror image of Pakistan. In that context the lust for Kashmir created an incentive for Congress to actually deliver on its pre-1947 pledge to secularism. The lack of a similar incentive in Pakistan led to that country moving fully into the non-secular camp which got formalized a couple of decades later as an Islamic state. At this point in time, there is about as much chance of Pakistan becoming secular as that of USA becoming communist, your tortured protests notwithstanding.
As far as right/wrong, fair/unfair is concerned, that is all theory. Hindus can argue all day that it was wrong and unfair for Ghaznavi/Ghouri to attack India without provocation and convert 25% people to Islam, who in the future demanded separation into Pakistan. Its not going to change the harsh reality one bit. Ghaznavi/Ghouri had the might to do what they did, and nothing can reverse that. Similarly Pakistan can complain all day about Nehru`s greed. Nehru was greedy and he had the means to get what he wanted. India has the power and the strength to retain Kashmir indefinitely, especially with nukes in hand. So it is a harsh reality that Pakistanis must accept and look to the future. Nehru is gone now, just as Ghaznavi/Ghouri are gone. However, both you and me and our future generations have to live side by side in peace.
[.... This is just ridiculous that you state that India could only be a secular state by having a Muslim majority state. The reason why Kashmir issue was created was because Hari Singh was a bigot and Nehru was just plain greedy....]
Actually I am arguing the opposite. I agree that Nehru was just plain greedy about Kashmir. However, this greed had a side effect. It forced him and the Congress leadership to honor their pre-1947 commitment to secularism as well as prevent Punjab/Bengal level communal violence to spread in other places.
My contention is that Congress had about as much commitment to secularism that the Muslim League had - it was basically a talking point in British India when both communities were together. Once partition had happened, there was hardly any incentive for secularism in India just as there was no incentive for secularism in Pakistan, especially in the communal atmosphere at that time. India could very well have become a hindu mirror image of Pakistan. In that context the lust for Kashmir created an incentive for Congress to actually deliver on its pre-1947 pledge to secularism. The lack of a similar incentive in Pakistan led to that country moving fully into the non-secular camp which got formalized a couple of decades later as an Islamic state. At this point in time, there is about as much chance of Pakistan becoming secular as that of USA becoming communist, your tortured protests notwithstanding.
As far as right/wrong, fair/unfair is concerned, that is all theory. Hindus can argue all day that it was wrong and unfair for Ghaznavi/Ghouri to attack India without provocation and convert 25% people to Islam, who in the future demanded separation into Pakistan. Its not going to change the harsh reality one bit. Ghaznavi/Ghouri had the might to do what they did, and nothing can reverse that. Similarly Pakistan can complain all day about Nehru`s greed. Nehru was greedy and he had the means to get what he wanted. India has the power and the strength to retain Kashmir indefinitely, especially with nukes in hand. So it is a harsh reality that Pakistanis must accept and look to the future. Nehru is gone now, just as Ghaznavi/Ghouri are gone. However, both you and me and our future generations have to live side by side in peace.
#264 Posted by avkrishna on October 14, 2006 4:55:42 am
Re: # 262
Revisionism at it`s height of immaturity...
You can blame Gandhi , but not his sincerity on the issue of co-existence between all religions.. And Congress of 1940s, atleast at the high level has more or less the same view. Of course, we have leader like Patel who believed different, but I strongly suspect Nehru is cut from the same cloth..
Rgds,
Revisionism at it`s height of immaturity...
You can blame Gandhi , but not his sincerity on the issue of co-existence between all religions.. And Congress of 1940s, atleast at the high level has more or less the same view. Of course, we have leader like Patel who believed different, but I strongly suspect Nehru is cut from the same cloth..
Rgds,
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- guru: Our ie BharatVarsha history... Dhokha and Being a
- tahir: Re: # 409 Too... Of Medical Students, Passports
- dost_mittar: GT#44, 45: I agree that... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- guru: Ahmed, Whom would I believe... Dhokha and Being a
- mullah_toofani: Asif baitay, Allama sahib seemed... Translation of a (Love)
- mullah_toofani: Hu
I remain, your... Of Medical Students, Passports - GT: D_M, ".... a man of... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- pinku: Ok guys, here is one... Dhokha and Being a
